The media is jumping up and down with happiness after it has been confirmed that there is a second whistleblower, but Mark Levin is tossing cold water on the news.
1. Since the first so-called whistleblower flopped, now the same lawyers reportedly and suddenly have a second so-called whistleblower. The choreography with this leftwing law firm, the Democrats, and the media goes on. But we all have the transcript of the phone call...— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) October 6, 2019
He continued to explain:
2. So why does it matter how many so-called whistleblowers are paraded out by this law firm?
This is all about trying to create the impression of a scandal. Trying to influence public opinion…
3. Trying to pick off congressional Republicans. Trying to build momentum toward impeachment.
Here’s the tweet confirming the second blower of whistles:
IC WHISTLEBLOWER UPDATE: I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. No further comment at this time. https://t.co/05b5aAVm2G— Andrew P. Bakaj (@AndrewBakaj) October 6, 2019
And the report:
Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the whistleblower who sounded the alarm on President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and triggered an impeachment inquiry, tells ABC News that he is now representing a second whistleblower who has spoken with the inspector general.
Zaid tells ABC News’ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that the second person — also described as an intelligence official — has first-hand knowledge of some of the allegations outlined in the original complaint and has been interviewed by the head of the intelligence community’s internal watchdog office, Michael Atkinson.
The existence of a second whistleblower — particularly one who can speak directly about events involving the president related to conversations involving Ukraine — could undercut Trump’s repeated insistence that the original complaint, released on Sept. 26, was “totally inaccurate.”
I do think that if Trump and others are going to argue that the whistleblower account was completely inaccurate, then it’s reasonable to present another witness who can confirm that account. On the other hand, Levin is right, it does kinda seem like they’re flailing about and tossing everything including the kitchen sink at Trump.
Finally, this all depends on the Investigator General. There are a lot of conclusions being made based on political agenda. I want to see what the IG says about all of this.